[Moderator]

This is what the sensible people among us have been saying for years...its comforting to know that the country's intelligence agencies are able to make clear honest judgements like this. Now if we can just get that pesky stubborn right wing to recognize reality, maybe...just maybe...we can turn this thing around.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/wo...yt&emc=rss

[spacefreak]

Brought to you from the same folks who "lied" in October, 2002. So we should believe them now, when it suits your agenda?

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Whether or not this current piece is an accurate assessment, I don't know or care. We can't sit around and let these radicals dictate how we behave. If it's not Saddam's removal, they're mad at some random cartoons, or the Pope, or some ugly woman soldier smoking cigarettes around captured combatants.

If they had their way, we'd all be subscribing to their warped view of Islam. Anything less, and they'll be "mad". F-ck 'em.

[nath]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Brought to you from the same folks who "lied" in October, 2002. So we should believe them now, when it suits your agenda?

I don't remember many on the left saying that the intelligence community were lying. Perhaps some did. But I think you know that they were in the minority.

However, a lot of people said that government officials, from Presidents and Prime Ministers downwards, lied in the way they selectively used and presented that information. That of course is something very different, which is why you chose not to address it.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Whether or not this current piece is an accurate assessment, I don't know or care.

You don't care whether a policy that you supported has failed in one of its key aims - to reduce and/or remove the threat of terrorist attack from the US? Fascinating.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by nath

I don't remember many on the left saying that the intelligence community were lying. Perhaps some did. But I think you know that they were in the minority.

However, a lot of people said that government officials, from Presidents and Prime Ministers downwards, lied in the way they selectively used and presented that information. That of course is something very different, which is why you chose not to address it.

It's known that this exact assessment was what many based their conclusions on. To sit here and claim otherwise is pure garbage. The assessment didn't lie, but when the administration uses that same assessment, they are lying? Get real.

You don't care whether a policy that you supported has failed in one of its key aims - to reduce and/or remove the threat of terrorist attack from the US? Fascinating.

The goal of the Iraq war was to remove Saddam.

As for the broader War on Terror, the goal is to fight back, not to sit here and allow the se thugs to take shots at us without reprisal.

What I don't care about are these Islamic radicals who get pissed at us every time we refuse to do what they demand. So they try to kill us, which they've been doing for decades. They planned and plotted before Iraq. The fact that we removed Saddam and are providing security for a fledgling government is now causing terrorism? Terrorism was alive and active well before, and would have continued regardless.

Our goal is to establish economically vibrant, capitalist societies where the people have employment and entrepreneurial options. Without such options, the leading employers will continue to be warlords and mullahs who plan and plot the killing of Americans, Zionists, infidels, Jews, etc.

Don't sit here and portray me as not wanting to reduce terrorism. I just happen to realize and comprehend the complexity of the issue, and that the best solutions will take a generation or two to fully implement.

It's only fools who think a rapid pull-out from the Middle East will all-of-a-sudden eliminate terrorism, and it's only morons who think our removal of Saddam and support for their new government somehow created terrorism.

[chabig]

First, this is from the New York Times, which is not a credible news source.

Second, the story doesn't name any specific intelligence agencies. It only uses the term generically. This is poor journalistic technique, often used to make a story look stronger when the facts are in fact, weak.

Third, the story says that this is a classified report. If so, why is the NYT even writing about it? This isn't the first time the NYT has leaked classified information.

[nath]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It's known that this exact assessment was what many based their conclusions on. To sit here and claim otherwise is pure garbage.

No, the body that the US tasked with determining the actual status of Iraq's WMD never reached that assessment. So your government cherry-picked some (now discredited) intel to reach their favoured conclusion instead. You do remember Colin Powell's humiliation at the UN don't you?

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The goal of the Iraq war was to remove Saddam.

As you well know, that was just one of the goals stated by Bush/Blair ahead of invasion. It's somewhat predictable to find you falling back on it now, as it's actually the only one that's actually been successfully concluded.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It's only fools who think a rapid pull-out from the Middle East will all-of-a-sudden eliminate terrorism, and it's only morons who think our removal of Saddam and support for their new government somehow created terrorism.

Neither the report from your intelligence agencies nor anyone in this thread has claimed either of those points, so lay down the straw men already.

Your intelligence agencies say that the invasion of Iraq has fuelled terrorist activities and support for terrorism across the globe. I agree with them.

For someone who supposedly doesn't 'know or care' about this assessment, it appears to make you rather sweaty.

[nath]

Originally Posted by chabig

First, this is from the New York Times, which is not a credible news source.

Indeed. I fully concede that my posts assume that there is such a report.

Originally Posted by chabig

Second, the story doesn't name any specific intelligence agencies. It only uses the term generically. This is poor journalistic technique, often used to make a story look stronger when the facts are in fact, weak.

My understanding is that these reports are collaborative in nature.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

If they had their way....

Here's the important piece of the puzzle your are missing...the are having they're way.

The intent of 9/11 wasn't just to kill randomly...its intent was to provoke us....to draw us into a long drawn out fight a la the Soviets in Afghanistan. That fight made OBL....and this one will make the next generation...who we'll be hearing from in 10 years time.

They want us there because they can't fight us here. We are fueling them. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing. We have played right into they're hands...so predictably its embarrasing. And we are losing because of it....because of the simple minds of people like you who are incapable of seeing the larger picture.

They want war. They are nothing but pesks without war. War gives them purpose, it gives them recruits, it gives them celebrity, it gives them money, it fuels the hatred that they need to be successful. We are inadvertently making it all worse..

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Moderator

We are creating more terrorists than we are killing. We have played right into they're hands...

Thank you for explaining it. Now I understand...we are forcing them to have sex with their women in order that they might produce more terrorists. They're sex fiends! It all makes sense now.

We have played right into they're hands...

Let's say a thug comes into your house and kills several of your family members. Are you afraid to go after him because you might make him mad? Or are you more concerned with his feelings? Do you wonder what made him do it? Or do you want the cops to find him and kick the sh-- out of him! We must never roll over in the face of evil. Fighting evil does not create more evil. Rolling over and letting evil grow unchecked is what creates more evil. Did you learn nothing about dealing with bullies when you were young?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Moderator

We have played right into they're hands...so predictably its embarrasing. And we are losing because of it....because of the simple minds of people like you who are incapable of seeing the larger picture.

They want war. They are nothing but pesks without war. War gives them purpose, it gives them recruits, it gives them celebrity, it gives them money, it fuels the hatred that they need to be successful. We are inadvertently making it all worse..

No, we are fighting back against an enemy that is at war against us (which you just admitted).

WTF should we do? Sit and be attacked? Give them al of our money? Force all our citizens to convert to their warped version of Islam?

Please, tell me what the f-ck we should do.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by nath

No, the body that the US tasked with determining the actual status of Iraq's WMD never reached that assessment. So your government cherry-picked some (now discredited) intel to reach their favoured conclusion instead. You do remember Colin Powell's humiliation at the UN don't you?

Yeah, when Powell quoted this same group that you now deem accurate because what they say today fits your agenda.

As you well know, that was just one of the goals stated by Bush/Blair ahead of invasion. It's somewhat predictable to find you falling back on it now, as it's actually the only one that's actually been successfully concluded.

The primary objective was always to remove Saddam. How the heck can one establish a new government and political system without first removing the dictatorial regime?

[quote]Your intelligence agencies say that the invasion of Iraq has fuelled terrorist activities and support for terrorism across the globe. I agree with them... For someone who supposedly doesn't 'know or care' about this assessment, it appears to make you rather sweaty./QUOTE]I just don't like losers coming in here saying that a group is correct ONLY on the points that suit their agenda.

Either this "thinktank" is always correct, or they're not always correct. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah, I don't care what the group says, because as I see it we have 2 choices: fght the bastards who want us dead, or sit idle and take hits from the bastards who want us dead.

Either way, they will keep firing at us.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah, when Powell quoted this same group that you now deem accurate because what they say today fits your agenda.

I thought the White House has spent the last two years instituting intelligence reform? Are you saying they've been unsuccessful?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Moderator

This is what the sensible people among us have been saying for years...its comforting to know that the country's intelligence agencies are able to make clear honest judgements like this. Now if we can just get that pesky stubborn right wing to recognize reality, maybe...just maybe...we can turn this thing around.

The right wing has driven itself into incoherence -- see spacefreak's postings above. This is just common sense, but it is impossible to acknowledge for someone who has from the start believed in the imaginary WMD, that Saddam Hussein (not Osama Bin Laden) was the real force behind 9/11, and all the other insanities. It's a bit scary, because no intelligence reports, no number of Americans or Iraqis dead -- nothing -- will ever convince these people that maybe we made a mistake. That it is time to try to find a solution instead of "staying the course" without regard to reality, and digging the holes deeper. Stupid conflicts can be solidified and made perpetual, because eventually accumulated resentment makes the original facts irrelevant. Spacefreak doesn't care about intelligence reports or what the facts are any more -- we should fight for the sake of it.

If we want a real solution, we need to cut our oil dependency -- impossible? We need to encourage democratic reforms, not condone torture. (I've been saying this for a long time, yet spacefreak still claims to see only two possible options: fight or surrender.)

[nath]

Originally Posted by Spacefreak

I just don't like losers coming in here saying that a group is correct ONLY on the points that suit their agenda.

Oh dear. You're actually not capable of basic reading and comprehension, are you?

There were plenty of caveats coming out of both US and international intelligence, let alone the enormous qualifications being issued by the UN inspection teams (to whom your government had trusted the task of ascertaining the status of those mysterious WMDs, until they stopped liking the answers they were getting). You, like your mind-blowingly incompetent government, chose to ignore them all.

Originally Posted by Spacefreak

Either this "thinktank" is always correct, or they're not always correct. You can't have it both ways.

So people are either always correct or always incorrect? Really?

Are you on crack?!?

Originally Posted by Spacefreak

Yeah, I don't care what the group says, because as I see it we have 2 choices

OK, binary-boy. I think we're done here.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Moderator

This is what the sensible people among us have been saying for years...its comforting to know that the country's intelligence agencies are able to make clear honest judgements like this. Now if we can just get that pesky stubborn right wing to recognize reality, maybe...just maybe...we can turn this thing around.




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/wo...yt&emc=rss

Aren't those the same guys who did nothing to prevent 9/11?

Then maybe were all heading for some very peaceful times?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by nath

So people are either always correct or always incorrect? Really?

Exactly my point. This "thinktank" has been wrong in the past. What makes them so right this time?

OK, binary-boy. I think we're done here.

Yeah, you're done because you refuse to offer a solution or scenario that contradicts the ones I presented.

Again, do we fight back, or do we sit idle and let them take shots at us?

[chabig]

Originally Posted by tie

This is just common sense, but it is impossible to acknowledge for someone who has from the start believed in the imaginary WMD...

It is a known and acknowledged fact that there were WMDs in Iraq. Everyone said so, including John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary, etc...

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Please, tell me what the f-ck we should do.

You fight the people who attacked you. When we had OBL cornered in Tora Bora our side had 50 rangers on the ground. 50 Rangers. You don't go off on tangents to settle old scores and fulfill ideological dreams when the primary goal remains unfinished, and cause the deaths of 40,000 innocent people in the process.

You focus your efforts on the goal at hand. And you stay true to the prinicples you are defending. We are doing neither right now....

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

please answer the question

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Here's the important piece of the puzzle your are missing...the are having they're way.

The intent of 9/11 wasn't just to kill randomly...its intent was to provoke us....to draw us into a long drawn out fight a la the Soviets in Afghanistan. That fight made OBL....and this one will make the next generation...who we'll be hearing from in 10 years time.

They want us there because they can't fight us here. We are fueling them. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing. We have played right into they're hands...so predictably its embarrasing. And we are losing because of it....because of the simple minds of people like you who are incapable of seeing the larger picture.

They want war. They are nothing but pesks without war. War gives them purpose, it gives them recruits, it gives them celebrity, it gives them money, it fuels the hatred that they need to be successful. We are inadvertently making it all worse..

OBL attacked knowing the right wing would react how they did. Not only knowing they'd react like that, wanting them to react like that.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Please, tell me what the f-ck we should do.

Bicker in the PWL, maybe ?

-t

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

lol

please answer the question

We could withdraw from Iraq and hope in 10 years they manage to put things back together. Because one other thing is sure, our presence in Iraq has made Iraqi's less safe. Staying there won't help anything. We are the problem. As soon as we leave Al Queda's interest in Iraq starts to fade.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by goMac

OBL attacked knowing the right wing would react how they did. Not only knowing they'd react like that, wanting them to react like that.

So how do you explain the WTC attack in 1993, the embassy attacks in 1998, the Khobar tower bombing in 1998, and the USS Cole attack in 2000? Which party was in charge during those attacks?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

We could withdraw from Iraq and hope in 10 years they manage to put things back together. Because one other thing is sure, our presence in Iraq has made Iraqi's less safe. Staying there won't help anything. We are the problem. As soon as we leave Al Queda's interest in Iraq starts to fade.

We leave when the Iraqi government feels that they can secure their nation themselves.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Moderator

You fight the people who attacked you. When we had OBL cornered in Tora Bora our side had 50 rangers on the ground. 50 Rangers. You don't go off on tangents to settle old scores and fulfill ideological dreams when the primary goal remains unfinished, and cause the deaths of 40,000 innocent people in the process.

The decision to remove Saddam was made years ago (much of it based on WMD reports issued by this same "thinktank"). You can't possibly think that arguing the decision now does anything to help the situation.

To catch you up on the events of today, the US and its partners currently provide security assistance to a young democracy in the Middle East. The Iraqi government has begun talks about forming a federalist nation w/ 3 distinctive states.

Their elected government still wants us to provide security services. Do you really think leaving ASAP will help Iraq or the US?

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by goMac

We are the problem. As soon as we leave Al Queda's interest in Iraq starts to fade.

Based on what's going on in Iraq at the moment, how can you say that whenwe leave, Al Queda's interests in Iraq will fade? Seems to me that they're mostly targeting and killing their own innocent muslim bretheren. Is what I said true? If the US leaves, what motivates Al Queda to stop killing innocent Iraqis?

[BushCheney08]

Originally Posted by chabig

It is a known and acknowledged fact that there were WMDs in Iraq. Everyone said so, including John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary, etc...

Exactly. For some reason the dems cant accept this. Rumsfeld even said exactly where they were: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

The CIA failed Bush and Cheney. I heard that Cheney even used to go to the CIA to make sure they were'nt failing, but they still did. Even Powell, who is basically a dem now, went before the UN (which is a total joke) and proved that saddam had WMDs. Then we found the moble labs, and the libs tried to pass them off as balloon pumps or something. Since then we've found stockpiles of his weapons, and yet the libs try to pretend this never happened.

The CIA couldn't even prove how Saddam was helping al-qaeda, which he obviously was. We've now spent years fighting his al-qaeda. And now the CIA thinks they know anything about terrorism. I can't wait to hear what Cheney has to say about this. He's not the vice-pres for nothing.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Based on what's going on in Iraq at the moment, how can you say that whenwe leave, Al Queda's interests in Iraq will fade? Seems to me that they're mostly targeting and killing their own innocent muslim bretheren. Is what I said true? If the US leaves, what motivates Al Queda to stop killing innocent Iraqis?

Yeah, you know Al Quada. Killing Muslims is completely their thing. Boy, we can't ever hold them back from killing more Muslims.

Where is the "crazy" emoticon? I really need it right about now.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by chabig

So how do you explain the WTC attack in 1993, the embassy attacks in 1998, the Khobar tower bombing in 1998, and the USS Cole attack in 2000? Which party was in charge during those attacks?

I'll refer you to the Clinton interview thread. The man himself can address that better than I can.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

We leave when the Iraqi government feels that they can secure their nation themselves.

The Iraqi government in power is allied with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was against Saddam Hussein and allied with the Iraqi revolutionaries. Guess who's in power now? The former revolutionaries. All Al Qaeda is trying to do is eliminate the now out of power minority group in Iraq.

So no, the Iraqi government is probably not all that worried. That is, unless you're a now unsafe member of the minority religious group in Iraq.

[marden]

Originally Posted by chabig

So how do you explain the WTC attack in 1993,

In the Issue: Byron York on Clinton on National Review Online

Clinton Has No Clothes
What 9/11 revealed about the ex-president.

By Byron York, NR White House Correspondent
From the December 17, 2001, issue of National Review

 

On June 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. When news reached Washington, Presi dent Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," he said angrily. "Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished." The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. "Let me be very clear: We will not resist" — the president corrected himself — "we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."

As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public's reaction to the bombing. "Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll," Morris recalls. "I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him." The bombing happened in the midst of the president's re-election campaign, and even though Clinton enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican Bob Dole, Morris worried that public dissatisfaction with Clinton on the terrorism issue might benefit Dole.

Indeed, Morris's first poll showed less support for Clinton than he had hoped. But by the time Morris presented his findings to the president and top staffers at a political-strategy meeting a few days later, public approval of Clinton's response had climbed — something Morris noted in his written agenda for the session:

SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It's not Clinton's fault 76-18

The numbers were a relief for the re-election team. But soon there was another crisis when, on July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. There was widespread suspicion that the crash was the result of terrorism (it was later ruled to be an accident), and Morris's polling found the public growing uneasy not only about air safety but also about Clinton's performance in the Khobar investigation. Morris found that the number of people who believed Clinton was "doing all he can to investigate the Saudi bombing and punish those responsible" was just 54 percent, while 32 percent believed he could do more. Morris feared that White House inaction would allow Dole to portray Clinton as soft on national security.

"We tested two alternative defenses to this attack: Peace maker or Toughness," Morris wrote in a memo for the president. In the "Peacemaker" defense, Morris asked voters to respond to the statement, "Clinton is peacemaker. Brought together Arabs and Israelis. Ireland. Bosnia cease fire. Uses strength to bring about peace." The other defense, "Tough ness," asked voters to respond to "Clinton tough. Stands up for American interests. Against foreign companies doing business in Cuba. Sanctions against Iran. Anti-terrorist legislation held up by Republicans. Prosecuted World Trade Center bombers." Morris found that the public greatly preferred "Toughness."

So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton's health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president's re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals. The African embassy attacks occurred as the Monica Lewinsky affair was at fever pitch, in the month that Clinton appeared before independent counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury. And when the Cole was rammed, Clinton had little time left in office and was desperately hoping to build his legacy with a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else.

The First WTC Attack
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president's reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against "overreacting" and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."

From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government's most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. "Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access," says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. "It was all under grand-jury secrecy."

Another problem with Clinton's decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno's Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for "sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.") In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6.

Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that "strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan." Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, "American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda."

But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — "I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful," Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation's most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack.

Originally Posted by chabig

the embassy attacks in 1998, the Khobar tower bombing in 1998, and the USS Cole attack in 2000? Which party was in charge during those attacks?

The rest of the attacks during the Clinton years and his responses are covered at the link.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

The Iraqi government in power is allied with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was against Saddam Hussein and allied with the Iraqi revolutionaries. Guess who's in power now? The former revolutionaries. All Al Qaeda is trying to do is eliminate the now out of power minority group in Iraq.

So no, the Iraqi government is probably not all that worried. That is, unless you're a now unsafe member of the minority religious group in Iraq.

There WERE connections between al Qaeda and Saddam.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by marden

There WERE connections between al Qaeda and Saddam.

Listen abe, why don't you just link to all your previous posts?

There were none significant enough to allow the intervention in Iraq.

Remove a brutal dictator is debatable, and what is happening now was predicted. But there are no proof that Al Qaeda worked with Saddam Hussein regarding 9/11, or any other attacks from AQ afterwards.. The training camps were not there withy the acknowledgement of SH either. You can repeat what you believe in ad vitam aeternam, that won't change a thing.

And Bush's "it will take a long time for democracy to happen in Iraq" is a truism, and means absolutely nothing in the perspective of his political mandate.

Game over.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Listen abe, why don't you just link to all your previous posts?

There were none significant enough to allow the intervention in Iraq.

Remove a brutal dictator is debatable, and what is happening now was predicted. But there are no proof that Al Qaeda worked with Saddam Hussein regarding 9/11, or any other attacks from AQ afterwards.. The training camps were not there withy the acknowledgement of SH either. You can repeat what you believe in ad vitam aeternam, that won't change a thing.

And Bush's "it will take a long time for democracy to happen in Iraq" is a truism, and means absolutely nothing in the perspective of his political mandate.

Game over.

Even Bush himself is now saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, and he is the one who started the lie in the first place!

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Even Bush himself is now saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, and he is the one who started the lie in the first place!

[right]Oh but you understand nothing of foreign policy! Bush is this well hidden political genius who will save the world from itself and the Muslim!

If he got you fooled, you stupid Liberal, that proves he has fooled all evildoers of this planet (and byond!)
Woua hah ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa (echo)[/right]

[Spliffdaddy]

Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

The report that this thread is based on contains much more information than what the liberal NY Times disclosed. They hand-picked the small pieces that made Dubya look bad, and ignored the overwhelming amount of text that made him look good. But then, that's why the NY Times is going broke. In fact, the full text of the report makes Dubya *right* for sending troops into Iraq - and implies that we need to keep troops there until we win.

[Nicko]

Ok everyone has to use 'cause celebre' in their posts from now on

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

The report that this thread is based on contains much more information than what the liberal NY Times disclosed. They hand-picked the small pieces that made Dubya look bad, and ignored the overwhelming amount of text that made him look good. But then, that's why the NY Times is going broke. In fact, the full text of the report makes Dubya *right* for sending troops into Iraq - and implies that we need to keep troops there until we win.

Bis repetitam, yadiyadi yada, yawn etc.

[Spliffdaddy]

^ typical liberal response to getting pwned

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

That is true, but he also alluded to Saddam very often when talking about 9/11. His style was very deceitful. Some people in his administration tried to say that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam though. Spliff, you are overestimating the judgement of these people who voted for him, convinced that the war in Iraq was the logical next step to the war in Afghanistan. This was probably the result of the Bush administration ambiguity.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by villalobos

Spliffdaddy, you are overestimating the judgement of these people who voted for him

Nice insult! Well done!! Smooth as breeze and well concealed. 8/10

V

[Kevin]

Did you guys know when we entered WWII Japan recruited new soldiers? We weren't any safer going into that either now were we.

I tell you, some people have narrow vision when it suits them.

But hey, how many terrorists attacks on US soil took place since 9/11?

And of course there are going to be more recruiters. Us pulling out or not doing anything wouldn't have made the terrorist go away.

The only way to discourage them is to continue doing what we are and over-come the majority. It will be discouraging.

I mean it's not like we are getting slaughtered over there. Even though some drama queens would like you to think we are losing.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

^ typical liberal response to getting pwned

Well this is the MacNN PL. Did you expect any different?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Even Bush himself is now saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, and he is the one who started the lie in the first place!

Let's see here....

wrong

and

wrong

Wow. 100% inaccurate.

This, folks, is why I'm a conservative. I wouldn't know how to be 100% wrong, so I would never be accepted by liberals.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Let's see here....

wrong

and

wrong

Wow. 100% inaccurate.

This, folks, is why I'm a conservative. I wouldn't know how to be 100% wrong, so I would never be accepted by liberals.

Well it's hard to be wrong when you don't specify what you're talking about

V

[Spliffdaddy]

It's hard for me to be wrong, regardless.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Listen abe, why don't you just link to all your previous posts?

There were none significant enough to allow the intervention in Iraq.

Remove a brutal dictator is debatable, and what is happening now was predicted. But there are no proof that Al Qaeda worked with Saddam Hussein regarding 9/11, or any other attacks from AQ afterwards.. The training camps were not there withy the acknowledgement of SH either. You can repeat what you believe in ad vitam aeternam, that won't change a thing.

And Bush's "it will take a long time for democracy to happen in Iraq" is a truism, and means absolutely nothing in the perspective of his political mandate.

Game over.

OpinionJournal - The Real World

September 26, 2006
2:43pm EDT

Saddam and al Qaeda
There's abundant evidence of connections.

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

President Bush has given some good speeches lately, including his talk June 29 at Fort Bragg, N.C., in which he stressed some of the reasons for going into Iraq, and his address this past Monday at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va., in which he talked about the role of intelligence in defeating terrorists and stressed that "the heart of our strategy is this: Free societies are peaceful societies."

But there's another speech Mr. Bush still needs to give. That would be the one in which he says: I told you so--there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

In some quarters, that would of course provoke the usual outrage. Since the U.S.-led coalition went outside the corrupt United Nations to topple the Baathist regime in Baghdad more than two years ago, it has become an article of faith that there was no such connection. Typical of the tenor in both the media and western politics is an article that ran last month in The Economist, describing Iraq as Mr. Bush's "most visible disaster" and opining that "even Mr. Bush's supporters admit that he exaggerated Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda."

If anything, Mr. Bush in recent times has not stressed Saddam's ties to al Qaeda nearly enough. More than ever, as we now discuss the bombings in London, or, to name a few others, Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, or the many bombings in Israel--as well as the attacks on the World Trade Center in both 1993 and 2001--it is important to understand that terrorist connections can be real, and lethal, and portend yet more murder, even when they are shadowy, shifting and complex.

And it is vital to send the message to regimes in such places as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran that in matters of terrorist ties, the Free World is not interested in epistemological debates over what constitutes a connection. We are not engaged in a court case, or a classroom debate. We are fighting a war.


But in the debates over Iraq, that part of the communication has become far too muddied. Documents found in Iraq are doubted; confessions by detainees are received as universally suspect; reports of meetings between officials of the former Iraqi regime and al Qaeda operatives are discounted as having been nothing more than empty formalities, with such characters shuttling between places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, perhaps to share tea and cookies. Any conclusions or even inferences about contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda are subjected these days to the kind of metaphysical test in which existence itself becomes a highly dubious philosophical problem, mired in the difficulty of ever really being certain about anything at all.

Certainty is then imposed in the form of assurances that there was no connection. This notion that there was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection is invoked as an argument against the decision to go to war in Iraq, and enjoined as part of the case that we were safer with Saddam in power, and that, even now, the U.S. and its allies should simply cut and run.

Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline "The Mother of All Connections." Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections--with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam's regime.

Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn raise, with good reason, the question of why Saddam gave haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the men who in 1993 helped make the bomb that ripped through the parking garage of the World Trade Center. They detail a contact between Iraqi intelligence and several of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, the year before al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers. They recount the intersection of Iraqi and al Qaeda business interests in Sudan, via, among other things, an Oil for Food contract negotiated by Saddam's regime with the al-Shifa facility that President Clinton targeted for a missile attack following the African embassy bombings because of its apparent connection to al Qaeda. And there is plenty more.

The difficulty lies in piecing together the picture, which is indeed murky (that being part of the aim in covert dealings between tyrants and terrorist groups)--but rich enough in depth and documented detail so that the basic shape is clear. By the time Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn are done tabulating the cross-connections, meetings, Iraqi Intelligence memos unearthed after the fall of Saddam, and information obtained from detained terrorist suspects, you have to believe there was significant collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. Or you have to inhabit a universe in which there will never be a demonstrable connection between any of the terrorist attacks the world has suffered over the past dozen years, or any tyrant and any aspiring terrorist. In that fantasyland, all such phenomena are independent events.

Mr. Bush, in calling attention to the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in the first place, did the right thing. For the U.S. president to confirm that clearly and directly at this stage, with some of the abundant supporting evidence now available, might seem highly controversial. But reviving that controversy would help settle it more squarely in line with the truth.

Ms. Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Her column appears here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe on alternate Wednesdays.

What we have here is a contrast of styles.

Clinton, who did the wrong things wants to manipulate and re-write history to make himself look good.

Bush, who did the RIGHT thing is doing very little to try to control the recorded history of his administration's actions. He is content to let history discover his greatness as time goes on.

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Nice insult! Well done!! Smooth as breeze and well concealed. 8/10

V

*marden files a formal P/L Olympics protest that the Spanish judge has shown undue bias.*

voodoo, you are overestimating the style, execution, and impact of the insult.

Maybe it gains something in translation. Could that explain why you love the P/L so much? English just sounds better to your ears? It's like our throwaway lines are like Shakespeare to you.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I tell you, some people have narrow vision when it suits them.

But hey, how many terrorists attacks on US soil took place since 9/11?

And how many took place between 9/11 and the previous WTC attack? Yes, Clinton kept you safe all that time WHILST RECEIVING BLOWJOBS!

How cool is that?


Just goes to show - make love, not war.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Bis repetitam, yadiyadi yada, yawn etc.

Is that how people swear under their breath and say, "Drat!" in some foreign language?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by marden

[Clinton, who did the wrong things wants to manipulate and re-write history to make himself look good.

Bush, who did the RIGHT thing is doing very little to try to control the recorded history of his administration's actions. He is content to let history discover his greatness as time goes on.

That last Clinton spaz out showed just how unhinged he is getting with this all.

Like it's eating away at him. We saw him foam a bit over the top in that instance. Probably would have gotten worse had they kept taping.

He had his "crazy eyes" going.

But then again, having to live with Hillary all those years would do that to any man.